RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01272
INDEX CODE: 108.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 OCT 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His service-connected medical conditions, tinnitus and impaired hearing, be
assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the
Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His hearing loss is the result of duties as an aircraft commander flying
combat sorties in F-4 aircraft. He was assigned as a line pilot with
duties that required work with munitions personnel. The activities
centered around weapons loading in three-sided revetments where jet engine
noise was bounced off the walls. He observed weapons loading activities at
the end of the runway within 200 feet of jets departing in full
afterburner. His duties involved pre and post flight duties in close
proximity to noisy fighter aircraft. These duties were performed during
war games, practice alerts, exercises, airborne operations and live fire
exercises. He spent time at the bombing range monitoring weapons delivery.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and
documentation associated with his CRSC application. His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant served as an enlisted member from 1 Dec 55 through 20 Apr 58. He
was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 21 Apr 58. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 20 Mar 74. He served as a pilot and
air operations officer. On 30 Jun 76, he voluntarily retired for years of
service. He served 20 years and 7 months on active duty
Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined
compensable rating of 10% for his unfitting conditions.
His CRSC application was disapproved on 21 Mar 05 based upon the fact that
his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-
related.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states in order for his tinnitus and
hearing loss to qualify for CRSC, documentation must exist to confirm these
conditions manifested while in service. Review of his service medical
records reveals numerous entries, including his retirement physical, in
which his audiometric scores indicated normal hearing. The DPPD evaluation
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states under the Veterans Hearing Loss Compensation Act,
presumption of service connection for hearing loss will be associated with
particular military occupational specialties, notwithstanding that there is
no record of evidence of such hearing loss or tinnitus, as the case may be,
during the period of service. The National Academy of Sciences has been
directed to identify those military occupational specialties that could be
associated with hearing loss or tinnitus. The study is on-going at this
time. There is no doubt in his mind that the aircrew member occupational
specialty will be one identified as qualifying. For the Senate to consider
and pass this Act indicates that there must have been many cases of
dissatisfied Veterans that did not receive proper consideration for delayed
onset of hearing loss after leaving the military. His complete response,
with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the available
evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical
conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not incurred as
the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in
the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an
instrumentality of war, and therefore, do not qualify for compensation
under the CRSC Act. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not
considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
01272 in Executive Session on 15 Dec 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 20 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 05, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00768
In the absence of a specific traumatic event resulting in significant, documented spine injury, it is impossible to attribute direct causation of degenerative spine disease to aerial flight. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01248
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01248 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 DEC 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, impaired hearing and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01657
His CRSC application was disapproved on 5 May 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat- related. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his hypertension and hemorrhoids are not combat related. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Sep 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01263
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His problems probably started with his combat flying in WWII and Korea but his disability became manifested during combat flying in Vietnam in fighter and helicopter missions. The Medical Consultant states his service records show he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the cervical spine at age 50. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Mar 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01876
Flying fighter aircraft is hazardous service and his duties towing target drones were conducted under simulated combat conditions. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his hypertension is not combat related. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01663
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement with nine attachments, his DD Form 214, Statement of Service, Retirement Orders, and other documentation associated with his CRSC application. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 06 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02060
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His injuries were incurred when he fell off a ladder entering a B-29 aircraft. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his degenerative arthritis and limited motion of arm are not combat related. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00768
The VA Rating Decision, dated 25 July 2003, states the applicant’s “service medical records are negative for tinnitus…” No other evidence was provided to indicate this condition began while the applicant was on active duty. After 50 years passage of time, his memory of those early active duty years in the Air Force may not be complete, but he does recall his complaint to the medical personnel at Yokota AFB of ear problems which persist to this day. After a thorough review of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00698
There is no evidence his hemorrhoid condition was directly caused by performance of his duties as a pilot. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00203
In order for tinnitus to qualify for CRSC, there must be documentation that clearly shows the condition manifested while in service; however, no evidence of hearing loss or tinnitus was found while he was on active duty. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...